SHRI SHAMRAO SHRIPATI PATIL,KOLHAPUR V. ITO WARD-2(3), KOLHAPUR

ITA 1420/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Shamrao Shripati Patil, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC confirming the addition of long-term capital gain and the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2010-11. The primary contention was the timing of the sale deed execution and the actual transfer of land, which the appellant argued occurred in the subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal noted the absence of the appellant during previous hearings and decided to remand the case for a fresh assessment on merits, emphasizing the need for the appellant to actively participate and provide necessary documentation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 361351 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Fair market value; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1); 271(1)(c); 133(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1420/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Shamrao Shripati Patil, 54 E Ward, Kadamwadi Road, Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur- 416005. PAN : BCAPP0373C Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Kalhapur. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition on account long term capital gain of Rs 51,48,983/- in assessment year 2010-11 when the final sale deed was executed on 20th May 2010 i.e. in AY 2011-12. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the sale deed executed on 04th September 2009 was incomplete as some of the Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 06.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 22.05.2025 ITA No.1420/PUN/2024 2 co-owners were not present and that the actual transfer of land was executed on 20th May 2010 when the parties to the sale deed executed a confirmation deed on 20th May 2010. 3] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or delete and of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the affidavit for condonation that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Ld. DR has not raised any objection to condone the delay therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished its return of income. On the basis of NMS data available in the system, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has sold immovable property of more than Rs.30,00,000/- and accordingly after taking approval of the appropriate authority notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) and 144(1) were issued to the assessee, however, the assessee did not responded. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the IT Act to the Joint Sub-Registrar, Kolhapur, who ITA No.1420/PUN/2024 3 provided the copy of sale deed executed on 04.09.2009. From perusal of the same, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee along with five other persons have sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.3,06,00,000/- whereas the Fair Market Value for the purposes of stamp duty was Rs.3,28,69,200/-. Since the assessee remained absent, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the IT Act by determining taxable income of Rs.51,48,983/-. The above assessed income includes long term capital gain (1/6th share of Rs.3,08,93,900/-) of Rs.51,48,983/-. 5. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any adjournment application was filed despite due service of notice of hearing, therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal with the able assistance of Ld. DR and on the basis of material available on record. 7. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue submitted before us that despite due service of notices of hearing the assessee ITA No.1420/PUN/2024 4 remained absent before the Assessing Officer as well as before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Accordingly, Ld. DR requested before the Bench to confirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 8. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that admittedly the assessee has sold certain immovable property along with five other persons. However, in the grounds of appeal as well as in statement of facts, it is the claim of the assessee that a supplementary deed was executed in the subsequent year, therefore, the transaction does not pertain to this year, but was entered in subsequent year i.e. assessment year 2011-12. Apart from the above, it is also apparent from the assessment order that no cost of acquisition was allowed while calculating long term capital gain. However, we also find that the first appeal order was passed ex-parte since the assessee remained absent before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to ITA No.1420/PUN/2024 5 the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produce documents/evidences in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 22nd day of May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 22nd May, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "